337 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Critical Fumble, on 09 April 2013 - 03:24 AM, said:

Who, me? What else would I be thinking of?

The tabletop rules for BT generally had smaller weapons as being more efficient to offset the fact that firing a bunch of smaller weapons would likely result in spread damage. With pinpoint aiming small weapons are buffed; but with the addition of hardpoints they're nerfed back into a state where they should be more or less balanced again.

I don't think that hard points are a good balancing tool here - Because what if they ever create a mech with "too many" hard opints because it requires this for canonical reasons. What if we get Omnimechs?

Hard points can make certain choices impossible, and might accidentally avoid balance issues. But I wouldn't trust on that. The AC/20 Catapult was limited by its inability to use an XL Engine. If 2 AC/20 with XL Engines are imbalanced (I am not saying- nor do I believe - it is), then the Jagermech "accicidentally" would have broken this.
There is currently no Assault Mech that can carry two Gauss Rifles. Is that a balancing precaution? Just introduce omni mechs , the clan gauss rifle, the King Crab or the Mauler, and there would be one of those.

Every weapon needs to be solidly balanced by weight, heat and ammo requirements. Hardpoints can and should exist to encourage different loadouts and to make mech variants feel different. I wouldn't suggest relying it to do more than that.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 09 April 2013 - 03:55 AM.

[Sifright]

MustrumRidcully, on 09 April 2013 - 03:55 AM, said:

I don't think that hard points are a good balancing tool here - Because what if they ever create a mech with "too many" hard opints because it requires this for canonical reasons. What if we get Omnimechs?

Hard points can make certain choices impossible, and might accidentally avoid balance issues. But I wouldn't trust on that. The AC/20 Catapult was limited by its inability to use an XL Engine. If 2 AC/20 with XL Engines are imbalanced (I am not saying- nor do I believe - it is), then the Jagermech "accicidentally" would have broken this.
There is currently no Assault Mech that can carry two Gauss Rifles. Is that a balancing precaution? Just introduce omni mechs , the clan gauss rifle, the King Crab or the Mauler, and there would be one of those.

Every weapon needs to be solidly balanced by weight, heat and ammo requirements. Hardpoints can and should exist to encourage different loadouts and to make mech variants feel different. I wouldn't suggest relying it to do more than that.

Indeed. I believe the above post to be rather well thought out and a good feedback on how balancing should occur...

Pgi how ever obviously doesn't.

[Side Step]

Tennex, on 08 April 2013 - 06:35 PM, said:

I don't understand why the devs are so resistant to balance changes.

competitive games like league of legends, starcraft 2 make balance changes almost every patch.

My thought exactly.

From Ask the Devs #35

Quote

CCQ 3: Why is Machine Gun damage so low?
(...)
Bumping MG damage will turn it into a laser that can be kept on with no heat penalty until it runs out of ammo. Now imagine the devastating effect that a 6 MG spider could do to the back of an Atlas! We are still investigating balance of the MG but don’t expect any significant increase in damage.

Imagine? Try it! It's a beta. You have tons of testers and it could be an iterative process! If the mythical 6 MG spider emerges and rules the battlefield, then just tone it down. Is that really so difficult?

[Sifright]

Side Step, on 09 April 2013 - 04:25 AM, said:

My thought exactly.

From Ask the Devs #35


Imagine? Try it! It's a beta. You have tons of testers and it could be an iterative process! If the mythical 6 MG spider emerges and rules the battlefield, then just tone it down. Is that really so difficult?

The dev that wrote that must be smokin some guud grass man.

He should share that stuff.

Edit: lol the short form of shizzle is asterisked out. Rather aggressive forum filter..

Edited by Sifright, 09 April 2013 - 04:40 AM.

[jeffsw6]

Purplefluffybunny, on 08 April 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

It is such a subjective topic. Only PGI have the data to see the larger picture. Even then I imagine it can be a tough call!

This is not a case of a "tough call." There are a number of armaments which are worthless. MG, Flamer, LB-10X (a few folks argue otherwise on that last one.) The problem is this causes a number of MECHS to be worthless. When the devs come out and say there is no problem, something is deeply wrong.

They do not take "ask the devs" very seriously. If they did, the dude might have checked to see that there is no such thing as a Spider with 6 ballistic mounts before posting it in his official response. Or a proof-reader might have. Or they might've posted a correction. Or they might've said, hrm, you know, maybe we haven't looked at this closely enough.

Noobzorz, on 08 April 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

There are some real no-brainers (MGs, flamers, LBX) that they just haven't touched.

QFT

El Bandito, on 08 April 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

Missile nerf was more of an emergency bandaid rather than real balancing.

QFT

I am, on 08 April 2013 - 08:51 PM, said:

How would you address balancing team grouping in pub matches, assuming you would desire to make it enjoyable for new players, in an effort to draw them into the MWO community and retain them? How would you address it in an effort to make solo pubbing enjoyable, in an effort to keep the lone wolves who wont be getting on TS/Mumble.

Integrate VOIP into the game. This should be their #1 priority, even above fixing bugs. It seems like they have far too small a player-base to be financially viable.

"Open beta" is the kind of thing that gamers love. When they are turned off by a total lack of tutorial, documentation, decent trial mechs, communications / teamwork ability for PUGs, extreme sniping that requires you be very familiar with maps to ever approach an enemy (let alone damage one), etc. that creates players who not only feel the game isn't worth their time now, but they may never try it out again.

Ralgas, on 09 April 2013 - 01:36 AM, said:

I'm aware of the mention of new tools at least twice since Jan, which is something we'll never see or affect us beyond the end use of the data......

They haven't used these tools.

Any fool can query an SQL database and learn that the two mechs that are dependent on light-weight ballistics are not combat-viable (the SDR and CDA variants) and that virtually no players are using them except to elite those chassis.

Any fool can use that information to figure out that there is a balance problem which should be addressed.

Don't have time for it right now? Fine. But don't tell the community "working as intended." That is stupid.

[Sifright]

Am i the only one amused by Egomanes posts declaring that people starting threads to the get MG looked at won't be successful because they are 'exploiting' the forum?

ahah.

when already more attention has been brought to the issue that all effort inthe past.

Truth is egomane it is not exploiting the forum.

if your overlords only view one type of data to make decisions then we have to prepare our data in a way that can integrated with your systems properly.

Don't shoot the messenger if you don't like the result. Fix the system.

[jeffsw6]

Sifright, on 09 April 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

Am i the only one amused by Egomanes posts declaring that people starting threads to the get MG looked at won't be successful because they are 'exploiting' the forum?

Do you think the dev trolled us all?

If so, epic troll. Epic.

[Sifright]

jeffsw6, on 09 April 2013 - 04:57 AM, said:

Do you think the dev trolled us all?

If so, epic troll. Epic.

I dunno a forum mod stating that using the forums to try and influence the devs being an exploit kind of resonates in a hilarious way.

like i spat my coffee over my keyboard!

[jeffsw6]

Sifright, on 09 April 2013 - 05:09 AM, said:

I dunno a forum mod stating that using the forums to try and influence the devs being an exploit kind of resonates in a hilarious way.

like i spat my coffee over my keyboard!

When I read the 400-post thread you dug up from December, it was abundantly clear to me that this has been a problem for far longer than I've been playing.

Now there is apparently an "artificial trend" of complaining? This is really no different than the constant spam of LRM threads for weeks and weeks (even before the "splash week.") It's a problem recognized by the vast majority of posters who have commented on the subject, and virtually all posters have the same suggestion: buff something.

That's not artificial. It's what you learn from spectating that poor guy who is grinding out Elite on his SDR. Or doing it yourself.

[Rebas Kradd]

For all the complaining about balance, I rarely see any opinions about what people think a truly "balanced" game would look like.

[Critical Fumble]

MustrumRidcully, on 09 April 2013 - 03:55 AM, said:

Spoiler

I don't think that hard points are a good balancing tool here - Because what if they ever create a mech with "too many" hard opints because it requires this for canonical reasons. What if we get Omnimechs?
Hard points can make certain choices impossible, and might accidentally avoid balance issues. But I wouldn't trust on that. The AC/20 Catapult was limited by its inability to use an XL Engine. If 2 AC/20 with XL Engines are imbalanced (I am not saying- nor do I believe - it is), then the Jagermech "accicidentally" would have broken this.
There is currently no Assault Mech that can carry two Gauss Rifles. Is that a balancing precaution? Just introduce omni mechs , the clan gauss rifle, the King Crab or the Mauler, and there would be one of those.
Every weapon needs to be solidly balanced by weight, heat and ammo requirements. Hardpoints can and should exist to encourage different loadouts and to make mech variants feel different. I wouldn't suggest relying it to do more than that.

Ah, OK. My point was that the hardpoint slot is now an additional cost to all weapons like critical slots and tonnage. While it doesn't actually change the effect of the weapon, it could, at least in theory, be used together with a solid understanding of the game's meta economy to keep variants from being too much or too little. The problem is that like most economies, the value of things change without your consent. Energy hardpoints tend to be "expensive" and ballistics are often "cheap" depending on how many there are relative to your tonnage, while the value of missile points changes wildly between mechs based on a number of factors. It also doesn't make things like LPS worth having, it seems at most it makes you sometimes switch to somewhat less efficient weapons in order to get greater bursts of damage out. And like you pointed out - omnipoints.

I'd like to argue that there can't be "OP" mech setups unless there's a problem with the items themselves, just ones that are frustrating and make the game un-fun. But in this game anything is possible.

Sifright, on 09 April 2013 - 04:21 AM, said:

Indeed. I believe the above post to be rather well thought out and a good feedback on how balancing should occur...

Pgi how ever obviously doesn't.

OK, a certain unnamed F2P game I was and still am a bit interested actually figured out a way to acquire worthwhile feedback from their fanbase. (Or I could be having a conspiracy nut moment and be totally off base) They had their community rep start a discussion thread every week about something or list of things related to their genre. People were then invited to reply and discuss the, well, docket items. The point of that? My bet is that they were fishing for people who were willing and able to the spend time to intelligently and clearly discuss things - ideal feedback sources. Right now PGI doesn't need that. They've got a lot of people who've put a lot of work into guides and analysis, and even more people who are willing to discuss the game. I'm going to stop myself right there.

[Shumabot]

Because the developers of this game don't care about competitive balance in the slightest and we just bicker among ourselves over tablescraps from pauls twitter. It's not resistance, the Devs are apathetic and this community is well and truly inept when it comes to understanding balance changes and issues in this game.

Edited by Shumabot, 09 April 2013 - 06:26 AM.

[Xeno Phalcon]

Balance is always a touchy issue no matter the game, hell blizzards got a stupid amount of employees and over the years had millions of people funding world of warcract but can they keep things balanced for more then a month? Pah! People still played it even when they were being wtfbbqpwned by bubblewinged ret paladins, stunlocked by rogues or yanked across the field by a derp knight.

Same has pretty much been a issue for mechwarrior games over the years, MWO being no exception. Anyone remember machinegun boats in MW2? How about small laser shadowcats in MW3? missile boats in mw4 or the dreaded poptart?

I just want a stable game first, balance ATTEMPTS later.

[Sephlock]

Purplefluffybunny, on 08 April 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

It is such a subjective topic. Only PGI have the data to see the larger picture. Even then I imagine it can be a tough call!

I agree with you with regards to big picture things, but I suspect there is either a lack of manpower or some bureaucratic nonsense involved in their slowness to address knockdowns or the useless weapons (to anything more than a tiny token degree).

[I am]

Zaptruder, on 08 April 2013 - 10:46 PM, said:

The goal is to increase group size to allow for player and grouping flexibility (you won't always have 8 people, even if you have more than 4). This produces less arbitrary and less frustrating experiences for the player base. It also decreases exploitative behaviour (you can still play with 5-8 players in the public group queue via sync drops).

Of course you need to recognize the increased effectiveness that group play has on performance; but the system shouldn't provide arbitrary and frustrating restrictions for the sake of a ham-fisted approach to balancing.

Elo multiplers provide for a somewhat more elegant (in that the details and complexity are hidden from the player) balance; a recognition of the various exigent circumstances that can affect the win/loss ratio outside of player skill alone.

At this time, I'd only suggest that; should that prove to be inadequate, I'd explore more fine grained methods for balancing group play, with the goal of making the new player experience enjoyable, while still retaining the fair competitiveness of the overall playerbase.



On that front, although its a feature change, I'd definetly want to include a lobby (which is something PGI are currently... 'exploring' (which is a very nebulous term indeed)), so that friends can have friendly more controlled matches with their friends for whatever reason (competition, introduction, tuition, laughs, etc). It would be one of the simpler things that can be done to make the game significantly more accessible to the player base.

I'd even encourage modding for lobby based play (akin to Starcraft 2) - if only because the player base has an amazing wealth of talent that collectively, no developer can ever hope to match. Amazing things (like the whole E-Sports scene, DOTA2, etc) arise from this sort of encouragement of the playerbase. But I digress.



I have no secret insight as to the machinations in PGI. I can only assume that they are for the most part a dedicated and passionate lot that truly believes in what they're trying to do.

From what I've gathered, they're not exactly top tier game development material - this is by far their biggest undertaking to date... but what they've achieved to date has despite the balance and the bugginess been extraordinary - the best fufillment of the Mechwarrior vision so far. Despite the numerous flaws, there is an indelible brilliance to the gameplay experience that no other game is able to touch.

But there are higher level goals and decisions that seem to limit their nimbleness in responding to player feedback.

They've purportedly adopted a strategy of listening to the noise and seeing what signal arises: but this isn't entirely evident when you consider how little they've acted upon the volume of feedback on various topics such as ECM and MGs/Flamers.

A large part of that arises from the community's misunderstanding on the actual gameplay mechanics that underpin the entire experience; so they end up making a whole heap of noise that if implemented would actually be detrimental to the game.

However, they've taken that attitude to the nth degree - beyond what is reasonable or effective in my opinion. That is to say, they have an underlying assumption that the player base *doesn't* know what it's talking about... and that once *their* gameplay systems and ideas are fully in, *then* the playerbase can provide adequate feedback.

To an extent, I understand this; but... we already have concrete proof in the form of MGs and Flamers that even when their additional systems are in place that they still underperform (or overperform as in the case of the Raven 3L). While things like PPC affect ECM, PPCs been buffed, Host State Rewind, etc have indeed made a dent on the overpoweredness of things like the Raven 3L - they remain still slightly unbalanced.

Perhaps they'll be right in some instances: once all their proposed systems are in place, the game will be appropriately balanced. But the reality is, as I've stated before, it still means that millions of hours are been played in an unbalanced state. Real players are coming and going based on their impressions of the game in this suboptimal state.

Is it really that difficult to adjust the gameplay values to reflect the current reality of the features? If Host State Rewind isn't in place, how about you give the Raven 3L a big ol' nerf in engine size until it is? If streaks are too effective on ravens, how about reducing the damage for a few patches until other factors arrive to balance them out? If the intent of machine guns is to allow players to disable the internal structure of the mech; including ammo, weapons, engines, actuators; and you haven't gotten the engine and actuator disabling part of things in, why not just buff the machine gun damage until those other factors arrive to show that they're OP?

Is the game really that poorly put together that changing basic variables could create issues with the stability of the game? I would hope not; but then what else other than perhaps obstinacy is stopping them from quickly iterating?


PGI... needs a much more open and transparent form of communication with its player base. Give us an insight into what is actually going on and the thinking behind those decisions. Harness the additional collective cognitive capacity of your playerbase. Fear not the secrets of your developmental process - no one cares about corporate espionage for this kind of product. The important bits of the whole endeavour are 1. the licenses, 2. the work already done.

I know there are interests beyond those at PGI that may determine what can and can't be communicated - but the need to control the message in such a perculiarly rigid way can only emerge from thinking that doesn't completely grasp at the communicative phenomenon of the internet.

Just level with us - we can be adults about it, as long as people don't have to grasp at straws to divine whether or not their actions are indeed reasonable or not. If you're working on too much content at the moment, but look unproductive because that content is slated to launch several months down the track; and you want to hold back... don't. Just let it all out - especially the parts where you double back on an initial decision after re-examining its merits. That's the development process; and it needs to be more transparent.

If we can better understand why something is done the way it is, we can stop arguing in circles, and stop producing counterproductive feedback.

But that would require a degree of humility from PGI to accept that the collective wisdom of the playerbase can have validity beyond their own ideas of what they'd like to see out of the game.

Zap I apprecaite your effort, opinions, and posting, but this thread seems to have turned into a buff MG thread, so I think you and I are talking into the wind. Anyways, thanks for the exchange, and you gave me alot to consider.

Thorn Hallis, on 09 April 2013 - 03:45 AM, said:

World of Tanks is the proof that balance isn't a factor to become successful.

Statistics, something your post completely ignores. You know in that game, anyone exceeding roughly a 58% win rate, is the top 3 %. Here, W/L ratios exceeding 70 are pretty common. They have balance. You dont. Lets compare community sizes now.

Oh wait, we can't. This one hides theirs. Im sure that has nothing to do the the former, right?

[I am]

TruePoindexter, on 09 April 2013 - 01:12 AM, said:

Wow - wall of text much? Here we go!



MW3 did not fail - as they saw fit to make an MW4. Being considered successful enough to justify another iteration is by definition not failing.

MW4 did fail but not because what skilled players did - it failed because it was a mediocre game. The single player campaigns were good and a lot of the concepts of multiplayer at the time (dedicated servers, in game browser, in game lobbies etc) were implemented well. The core gameplay mechanics were simplistic and flawed. Games turned into all assault mechs with heavy weapons because if you brought anything else you were wrong. No amount of min-maxing is possible when there is literally one correct build and anything past that was simply wrong.



Obviously a touched a nerve here. First you may be reading too much into the OP - he said two sentences. One a statement of his own confusion followed by an assertion of other games. That's all.

Moving on though substantial changes should be resisted simply because they are substantial. Has anyone really thought out every possibility with some of the changes proposed? Will they solve the problem without creating new ones? What about the technical implications of a change? How will this effect systems, networking, and all the other complex components required to make an online game possible? Continually rocking the boat with changes until something sticks is far worse than than gradually easing it into the correct direction.



So wait - we're not supposed to play to win? I suppose that most athletes compete in their sports just for fun and not to win also?

Obviously that's wrong - in game is moving towards a competitive seen and is very much so played to win. I spend a lot of time learning how to be better and I take the time to share what I've learned with the community. No I don't think I'm the best nor do I ever think I will be - but that doesn't mean I won't try and the journey I feel is worthwhile. If you disagree that's your prerogative but don't complain when I or someone like me soundly beats you in a match.

I'm going to just cut off the rest of the post here because it's just more of the same anti-competitiveness sentiment. It's your business what principals you conduct yourself by but don't expect me to adhere to them.

You must have only read the first three words of each sentence. Its not about me, I can do fine. I am a glutton for punishment, and stuck around long enough to "figure it out". Its about the min/max team stacking's impact on my ability to draw/re-draw my friends into the game, its about the same pushing players away as fast as MWO pop up ads pull them in.

Attempt to trivialize and simplify my posting into some QQ I cant win posting that it is not all you want. I especially like the part where you characterize stacking and stomping as "this game moving towards competitive play". Note the 8 man queue. Theres your competitive play, and by and large, it's empty.

If you had read everything I posted in total, you could have responded intelligently. Instead your post is just example number 10,000 of the cancerous community this has evolved into.

[Teralitha]

I am, on 08 April 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

So work towards your initial ambitions, whether they result in balance or not?

And the devs are at a loss, but you forum founders know just how to fix it all?

I'll give you this much. Your a prime example of what is inherently flawed with the community side of this cluster fhuk. Keep up the good work there expert pseudo dev, really. May you end up with the unbalanced dung pile you seem to be pushing for.

So tell me about the community size in previous MW titles?

The game is already an unbalanced dung pile that had nothing to do with anything I suggested. All my suggestions would clean up this mess.

[Teralitha]

MustrumRidcully, on 09 April 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:

Harder to balance then LOL or Starcraft?

MWO does not have area effects, it does not have buffs, debuffs or crowd control abilities. It's really just a set of weapons with a small set of variables that you try to balance. You don't have to think about stuff like "Okay, 20 damage for this weapon sounded good, but with this buff, it goes to 25 and this other debuff the target will take 20 % of that damage for 1 second for 5 seconds, and this CC effect will stun the person so it can't do anything to react and need a second character to help out, but the combo is available to a single character..."

M W:O it's basically just a question of how much firepower you can stack on one mech with the weight you're given, without exploding from heat and running out of ammo before you made your kills.

Yes, and that is harder to balance. Or so it seems.....

[Chazer]

League of legends was/is notorious for letting changes or new features stay as they are for a while before making any changes. Riot does not pay attention to the initial community reaction which is usually overly dramatic.

[Teralitha]

jeffsw6, on 09 April 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

This is not a case of a "tough call." There are a number of armaments which are worthless. MG, Flamer, LB-10X (a few folks argue otherwise on that last one.) The problem is this causes a number of MECHS to be worthless. When the devs come out and say there is no problem, something is deeply wrong.

Heat is the reason why those weapons are useless. Heat effeciancy is far too good.

Makes flamers useless in that they cant cause a mech to overheat anymore.
Makes MG useless because good HE allows you to carry bigger weapons so why bother with MG
Makes LBX useless because good HE allows you to carry more energy weapons for more damage better range for the same tonage of the weapon and ammo so LBX is pointless.

Basically the heat efficiency scale is the cause of all these weapons balance issues. Not even damage values have more impact than heat does. Not even recycle times, or projectile speed or missle spread have greater effect on the balance than heat efficiency does.

Devs need to focus on heat efficiency to balance this game properly. (but they wont)

Edited by Teralitha, 09 April 2013 - 07:32 AM.